People Take One Look At This Chart And Conclude Stocks Are Due For A Big Plungehttp://www.businessinsider.com/jp-morgan-sp-500-inflection-points-2013-1/comments
en-usWed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500Tue, 03 Mar 2015 16:04:25 -0500Sam Rohttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50edb0046bb3f7ae72000015MarkHWed, 09 Jan 2013 12:59:32 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50edb0046bb3f7ae72000015
So the logic of this chart is that we've peaked twice before in the mid 1500s so since we are closing in that level again we must be nearing another peak? Are you serious? I could probably find dozens of times in history where the market has formed a double top only to go through that level to new highs on the third attempt. We expect better analysis than this type of simplistic thinking.
And as jmccastlain points out, the pe back in 2000 before it crashed was double the current pe. So if you come up with a chart plotting pe instead of index level, we need to be approaching an s&p around 3000 before I should be worried!!! ditto yield by the way.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb5a0169beddd14d000028Joel ChitieaMon, 07 Jan 2013 18:28:01 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb5a0169beddd14d000028
I know the market has had an impressive run but I saw the chart and came to a completely different conclusion than the one mentioned here. If take a look at the inset box, look at the different valuation metrics reached at each high over the last 12 years. The market is cheap on an earnings basis, a P/E basis and dividend yield basis. When you stack those three things up against a 10 year Treasury under 2% I think you still have to own stocks. The first time I saw the chart I went "Whoa, this looks like trouble!" Look a little deeper and it looks just fine.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb445b69bedd7019000014MekongcolaMon, 07 Jan 2013 16:55:39 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb445b69bedd7019000014
That's wishful thinking...http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb399becad045e5e000006cabaretvoltaireMon, 07 Jan 2013 16:09:47 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb399becad045e5e000006
Notice that the first bubble (+106%) is built upon real growth in techy computery internety consumer activity, and the chart zig zags a straight line from red dot to red dot.
Then the second bubble (+101%) is built upon real growth in easy money buy a housey consumer activity, and the chart sin waves between red dots.
The Obama bubble (+111%) is just a giant fake circular arc over the line of Obama bubble trouble leading to real and dangerous capitulation.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb04ea6bb3f7d46500000bDurpMon, 07 Jan 2013 12:24:58 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eb04ea6bb3f7d46500000b
If the market follows the same trend as the last secular bear (1966-1982), we'll see ~18% pullback and then a breakout of the 1565 high in early 2016.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eafdc5eab8eaf50500000cAnthony tMon, 07 Jan 2013 11:54:29 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eafdc5eab8eaf50500000c
The Fed is easing too. No more fiscal cliff worries. Just debt ceiling in mid-Feb. Room to run.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eae147ecad04953400000dpatternsMon, 07 Jan 2013 09:52:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eae147ecad04953400000d
I look up at the night sky and see Taurus. Ancient Chinese saw something else. Native Americans saw another creature. The bottom line - look at enough charts and eventually see whatever you want to see. I see a stock market with little retail participation, a mediocre global economy, and trillions of printed money buying up said market. No idea if its going up or down, but this chart is about as healthy as the ekg of a 400 lb man on mile 25 of the Nyc marathon after finishing two cheeseburgers and a Scotch.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eadbe369bedda811000042ThelmaGaineyMon, 07 Jan 2013 09:29:55 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eadbe369bedda811000042
&#78;&#111;&#119;&#32;&#100;&#105;&#102;&#102;&#105;&#99;&#117;&#108;&#116;&#32;&#116;&#111;&#32;&#103;&#101;&#116;&#32;&#97;&#32;&#106;&#111;&#98;&#32;&#119;&#105;&#116;&#104;&#32;&#103;&#111;&#111;&#100;&#32;&#115;&#97;&#108;&#97;&#114;&#121;&#44;&#9745;&#9745;&#9745;&#32;&#32;&#83;&#116;&#97;&#114;&#116;&#32;&#119;&#111;&#114;&#107;&#105;&#110;&#103;&#46;&#32;&#36;&#56;&#53;&#32;&#97;&#110;&#32;&#104;&#111;&#117;&#114;&#33;&#32;&#83;&#101;&#114;&#105;&#111;&#117;&#115;&#108;&#121;&#32;&#73;&#32;&#100;&#111;&#110;&#39;&#116;&#32;&#107;&#110;&#111;&#119;&#32;&#119;&#104;&#121;&#32;&#109;&#111;&#114;&#101;&#32;&#112;&#101;&#111;&#112;&#108;&#101;&#32;&#104;&#97;&#118;&#101;&#110;&#39;&#116;&#32;&#116;&#114;&#105;&#101;&#100;&#32;&#116;&#104;&#105;&#115;&#44;&#32;&#73;&#32;&#119;&#111;&#114;&#107;&#32;&#116;&#119;&#111;&#32;&#115;&#104;&#105;&#102;&#116;&#115;&#44;&#32;&#50;&#32;&#104;&#111;&#117;&#114;&#115;&#32;&#105;&#110;&#32;&#116;&#104;&#101;&#32;&#100;&#97;&#121;&#32;&#97;&#110;&#100;&#32;&#50;&#32;&#105;&#110;&#32;&#116;&#104;&#101;&#32;&#101;&#118;&#101;&#110;&#105;&#110;&#103;&#8230;&#9728;&#9728;&#9728;&#32;&#65;&#110;&#100;&#32;&#119;&#104;&#97;&#116;&#8217;&#115;&#32;&#97;&#119;&#101;&#115;&#111;&#109;&#101;&#32;&#105;&#115;&#32;&#73;&#8217;&#109;&#32;&#119;&#111;&#114;&#107;&#105;&#110;&#103;&#32;&#102;&#114;&#111;&#109;&#32;&#104;&#111;&#109;&#101;&#32;&#115;&#111;&#32;&#73;&#32;&#103;&#101;&#116;&#32;&#109;&#111;&#114;&#101;&#32;&#116;&#105;&#109;&#101;&#32;&#119;&#105;&#116;&#104;&#32;&#109;&#121;&#32;&#107;&#105;&#100;&#115;&#46;&#32;&#72;&#101;&#114;&#101;&#8217;&#115;&#32;&#119;&#104;&#101;&#114;&#101;&#32;&#73;&#32;&#119;&#101;&#110;&#116;&#46;&#46;&#46;&#9745;&#9728;&#9745;&#9728;&#9745;&#9728;&#9745;&#32;&#77;&#111;&#110;&#101;&#121;&#72;&#111;&#116;&#115;&#112;&#111;&#116;&#46;&#77;&#69;&#76;&#55;&#46;&#67;&#111;&#109;&#9731;&#9731;&#9731;&#9731;http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eadb1cecad04382e000006SchmidtMon, 07 Jan 2013 09:26:36 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eadb1cecad04382e000006
Hmm... If that's true, where is the pre-1997 data? It should have behaved the same back then.
I suspect that the depicted pattern worked during the time period of 1990-2009 which will never repeat because most economical and political factors are now very different (and they may have been totally different before 1990) from what we are going through now.
The JPM chart really makes me think that the data is selected to support the analyst's personal bias.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eada626bb3f7891b000003One problemMon, 07 Jan 2013 09:23:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eada626bb3f7891b000003
Interest rates are close to zero now, they are 5-6% during normal growth periods. If we adjust corporate earnings for the severe recession rates we are at right now, Earnings would drop by abouit 25-30%, assuming Corps pay 3 percentage points less now than they would in a healthy economy. That would make forward P/E 17.85 to 1. That's the problem, we can never raise interest rates without harming corporate profits and causing a stock market crash and another recession.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50ead5a2ecad043c25000007jmccastlainMon, 07 Jan 2013 09:03:14 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50ead5a2ecad043c25000007
I do not agree with your conclusion or intrepretation of the this chart. FWD PE levels are much lower than the previous crashes and DIV Yield is much higher. A simple comparison to the valuation numbers leads me to conclude the market has room to move higher.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50ead4b769bedd3c7c000031FubarsMon, 07 Jan 2013 08:59:19 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50ead4b769bedd3c7c000031
Follow thy oil and financial bubbles and you will .seehttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eacdc96bb3f7f07f00000acorrectMon, 07 Jan 2013 08:29:45 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eacdc96bb3f7f07f00000a
Sarcasm aside, you're absolutely correct because there really isn't any complex science behind the stock market and never has been.
Traders and brokers would have you believe it's complex mathematics behind the direction of the chart when it's clearly not.
nice try.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac8996bb3f74477000001Martin SMon, 07 Jan 2013 08:07:37 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac8996bb3f74477000001
Well isn't that just fantastic: JP Morgan has cracked the formula! All you have to do to make terrific profits is: short the market when it has made 100% gains, and go long after it has lost 50% or so. Easy peasy!
The formula -- it didn't work during the last century, but who cares -- it's already worked twice during this one!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac6dc69beddbf5a00002eTJ ParkerMon, 07 Jan 2013 08:00:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac6dc69beddbf5a00002e
"From the looks of it, we're due for a big downward move in the stock market."
Whoa! Yes! Because history and markets are cyclical, of course, and we're doomed to repeat this exact same 6-year pattern from now until the heat-death of the Universe. Good work, guys!http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac6aceab8eab608000026The Trigger......Mon, 07 Jan 2013 07:59:24 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac6aceab8eab608000026
Just waiting for a "surprise" downgrade by S&P ..................http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac67669bedd745700001fFreddy beeMon, 07 Jan 2013 07:58:30 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eac67669bedd745700001f
Trends come to an end... We are headed higherhttp://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eabfdc69beddab4700001foquitiesMon, 07 Jan 2013 07:30:20 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eabfdc69beddab4700001f
the chart speaks for itself, doofus.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eabe666bb3f7d86300000aSteveCMon, 07 Jan 2013 07:24:06 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eabe666bb3f7d86300000a
John Mauldin is an expert? He's a political hack.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eabaaceab8ea186500002bdMon, 07 Jan 2013 07:08:12 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eabaaceab8ea186500002b
No worries! Joe Weisenthal says things are going to be great because Central Banks will save us. You need to put your faith in what Joe says.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eab80f6bb3f7b152000026burn it downMon, 07 Jan 2013 06:57:03 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eab80f6bb3f7b152000026
It's really funny the stock market is largely driven by sentiment and shows it to be nothing more than a casino.
Using a Fibonacci sequence to gamble on someone's hard earned money doesn't make you a genius.http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eab1da69bedd242500001cdot . Mon, 07 Jan 2013 06:30:34 -0500http://www.businessinsider.com/c/50eab1da69bedd242500001c
this chart is monitored on every trading desks since 2010... scary